From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
To: "Madjid Nakhjiri" <mnakhjiri@huawei.com>, <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>,
<Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>
CC: "Mobile IPv4 Mailing List" <mip4@ietf.org>, "Chowdhury, Kuntal"
<kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com>, <kleung@cisco.com>, "Avi Lior"
<avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, "Henrik Levkowetz"
<henrik@levkowetz.com>
Subject: RE: [Mip4] Minutes from Prague
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:51:29 -0400
Hi, Madjid,
Sorry, I missed the distinction between nakhjiri-radius-mip4-02
and ietf-mip4-radius-requirement. My mistake.
From our charter:
8. RADIUS attributes for MIP4. A set of RADIUS attributes has been
proposed for MIPv4.
The working group will first produce a requirements specification,
describing how the work differs from the requirements in RFC 2977 and
the functionality provided by RFC 4004 (the MIPv4 Diameter App). The
reason why this first step is required is that RFC 3127 shows that
full RFC 2977 functionality can't be provided by even a considerably
extended RADIUS, so we need to match the requirements to what can be
done within RADIUS.
Provided the requirements work finds approval with ADs and RADEXT WG,
the workgroup will complete the specification of MIPv4 RADIUS
attributes, solicit feedback from the RADEXT WG, adjust, and submit
this for publication. Note that the work may require extensions to
the
RADIUS attribute space which will be handled outside the MIP4 WG.
RADEXT chairs: could one of you (or someone you designate)
please review the draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-01.txt,
and let us know whether it answers your concerns?
Thanks,
-Pete
Madjid Nakhjiri wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> As I said the reviews were on the nakhjiri-radius-mip4-02 and mainly
> around how/whether Mobile IP is extending RADIUS beyond its limit or
> not and that is why we wrote the ietf-mip4-radius-requirement as a
> response to those reviews to show that we are not stressing RADIUS in
> any way. Part of the issue was also that RADEXT has been working on
> its attribute space extension.
>
> The requirement doc has not been reviewed, since 00 was presumably
> expired before a review. My suggestion was to force a review through
> last call.
>
> If you are interested in the comments on nakhjiri-radius-mip4, I can
> send it.
>
> R,
>
> Madjid
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:pete.mccann@motorola.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:49 PM
> To: Madjid Nakhjiri; Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Cc: Chowdhury, Kuntal; kleung@cisco.com; Avi Lior; Henrik Levkowetz
> Subject: RE: [Mip4] Minutes from Prague
>
> Hi, Madjid,
>
> Would it be possible to get the reviews sent to the list, and some
> description from you of how they were addressed?
>
> -Pete
>
> Madjid Nakhjiri wrote:
>> Hi Chairs,
>>
>>
>> draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements Active -
>> Needs review!!! Peter: Will go outside the WG to find reviewers.
>>
>> This document was actually produced as a response to the outside (AD
>> and RADEXT chairs) reviews on the draft-nakhjiri-radius-mip4-02.
>>
>> Is it possible to do a last call on this requirement document?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Madjid
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:pete.mccann@motorola.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:25 AM
>> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
>> Subject: [Mip4] Minutes from Prague
>>
>> Attached are the draft minutes from the mip4 meeting at IETF 68 in
>> Prague. Please review and send comments and corrections to the list.
>>
>> Thanks to Vidya Narayanan and Nicolas Montavont for taking notes
>> during the meeting.
>>
>> -Pete